Is there an absolute morality?

[Tinker Grey]

Yes as far as inalienable rights to life are concerned killing prisoners of war is a breach of Human Rights. Technically so is killing people on death row. But the execution debate is ongoing.

I didn't say "killing prisoners of war". I meant killing in battle.

Inalienable means "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor." (https://www.google.com/search?q=inalienable)

We take people's lives all the time in ways most consider justified. There is no inalienable right to life.

 

[Astrid]

From post 1243,

"feeling of sorrow or deep tenderness for one who is suffering or experiencing misfortune," mid-14c., compassioun, literally "a suffering with another," from Old French compassion "sympathy, pity" (12c.), from Late Latin compassionem (nominative compassio) "sympathy," noun of state from past participle stem of compati "to feel pity," from com "with, together" (see com-) + pati "to suffer" (see passion).

A literal translation from old french.
Etymology and definition being the same thing.
Talk that way an nobody will have a clue
what you are saying.

But as with claiming, literal fact and all, that i was " talking
politics", there was a way to makes that correct
even though it was not, theres always a way to
weasel.
Etymologt=definition
" I know what I meant" makes any falsehood true.

 

[Astrid]

Prejudice in that sense is something like assuming that a person is better because they are white.

Deciding that you can't conclude1 that a person is guilty until there is sufficient evidence to justify that conclusion is not, I think, prejudice.

Depends. Presumed innocent until is like, you cant just
lynch someone.

 

[Astrid]

This person is beautiful, therefore they are good.

I know lots of very beautiful people who are really horrible.

Me! Me!

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[stevevw]

I didn't say "killing prisoners of war". I meant killing in battle.

Inalienable means "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor." (https://www.google.com/search?q=inalienable)

We take people's lives all the time in ways most consider justified. There is no inalienable right to life.

Just because we take peoples lives all the time doesn't mean its justified and just because its justified in some cases like war doesn't mean "Life" is not intrinsically valuable.

I think war is mostly unjustified and only in very rare cases where there is little option is it necessary. Even then it can be argued that defending innocent people against a tyranny that treats "Life" as nothing is a greater moral good and not defending "Life" is a greater moral wrong.

Its just like on an individual basis when someone is attacking you or your family. You are justified to defend yourself and family against some maniac killer. If you don't then you are committing a moral wrong in allowing innocent life to be taken when you were in a position to save it.

Morals don't happen in isolation and they conflict and we have to be able to consider circumstances and what is the morally best thing to do in those situations. A moral truth can always be found independent of subjective thinking and this includes examining our own motives and biases for doing something as opposed to what is the right thing to do. The Vietnam and Iraqi wars come to mind as being unnecessary.

This is what UN HR states
The death penalty is a denial of the most basic human rights; it violates one of the most fundamental principles under widely accepted human rights law—that states must recognize the right to life.
https://ccrjustice.org/files/CCR Death Penalty Factsheet.pdf

Resolution 237 (1967)
“that essential and inalienable human rights should be respected even during the vicissitudes of war”.1
https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/hr_in_armed_conflict.pdf

 

[Tinker Grey]

Just because we take peoples lives all the time means its justified and just because its justified doesn't mean "LIfe" is not intrinsically valuable. I think war is mostly unjustified and only in very rare cases where there is little option is it necessary. Even then it can be argued that defending innocent people against a tyranny that treats "Life" as nothing is a greater moral good.

Morals conflict and we have to be able to consider circumstances and what is the morally best thing to do in those situations. A moral truth can always be found and this includes examining our own motives and biases for doing something as opposed to what is the right thing to do. The Vietnam and Iraqui wars come to mind as being unnecessary.

Its just like on an individual basis when someone is attacking you or your famility. You are justified to defend yourself and family against some maniac killer. If you don't then you are committing a moral wrong in allowing innocent life to be taken when you were in a position to save it.

I didn't say anything about value in my post. I was talking about the use of the word 'inalienable'. At least read the posts you respond to.

 

[stevevw]

I didn't say anything about value in my post. I was talking about the use of the word 'inalienable'. At least read the posts you respond to.

Ok I was assuming that when you are talking about a persons inalienable right to "Life" that this is based on its "value".

Nevertheless the links were about "Inalienable Rights to life" not changing because of war or the death penalty so the same still applies. Just because we take peoples lives doesn't means its justified or mean the right to life is not an "inalienable right" as the links stated.

 

[childeye 2]

Prejudice in that sense is something like assuming that a person is better because they are white.

It can be a bias just as you describe. But the positive aspect of this particular bias is only superficial. It's how we qualify the sentiment behind the term prejudice that makes it hypocritical or not as a prejudgment. To me, what you describe above is a negative prejudice as in pre-conceived. This above is not what I'm talking about.

The positive prejudice I'm talking about is grace as opposed to cynicism, where in the circumstance of there being no evidence to conclude innocence or guilt, it's not hypocritical to presume the positive about a person rather than presume the negative about a person, even though both could be possible about a person given that there is no evidence, or not enough evidence to establish what is true one way or the other. (One long sentence)

Deciding that you can't conclude that a person is guilty until there is sufficient evidence to justify that conclusion is not, I think, prejudice.

Yes I agree since prejudice as a prejudgment is not based on evidence. But that does not conclude innocence either. This is why it is articulated as 'presumed' innocent.

 

[childeye 2]

But as with claiming, literal fact and all, that i was " talking
politics", there was a way to makes that correct
even though it was not, theres always a way to
weasel.

Etymologt=definition
" I know what I meant" makes any falsehood true.

Childeye: "I figured you were either talking about a left/right dichotomy, or you were pointing out that shadows are caused by something blocking the Light."


The term "figured" in the statement above disqualifies it as me "claiming" any certainty that you were "talking politics" (to figure means to suppose). The statement is therefore clearly indicating what I was thinking when pondering what you might mean by this:

Estrid: "There is no bright line distinction between moral and immoral,
no more than there is between night and day."

Notice my response was, Childeye: "Light is a good analogy. And Light exists objectively, as does morality." (I accepted your analogy as an analogy)

Estrid: Come now. You cannot possibly think I was not
pointing out that night shades into day.

Childeye: "I figured you were either talking about a left/right dichotomy, (Two or more opposing subjective views of morality debating in degrees where the objective center is, or in another word "politics")

OR you were pointing out that shadows are caused by something blocking the Light." (The earth blocks the Light on one side as it turns towards and away from the the sun, making night/day, dusk/dawn)

Estrid: Your comment about light is irrelevant, your announcement
about morality is what we refer to as a " fact not in evidence,
Its just your opinion. (You just proclaimed your own analogy about morality, daytime/nighttime, irrelevant to morality)

I know what I meant, and it's even qualified in the text. No weaseling here.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then that would be this

the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

Okay. Now tell me this, please. Why is this special regard deserved? In other words, why should we hold life to a special esteem?

 

[stevevw]

Okay. Now tell me this, please. Why is this special regard deserved? In other words, why should we hold life to a special esteem?

I think the reasons why life has this special intrinsic value comes from a number of sources and they all seem on converge that "LIfe" is special and valuable.

As far as we know we are the only human life in the universe thus rare. But its also because its conscious life where we are able to realize this and our place in the scheme of things. All religions make "Life" special and respected. As mentioned all world bodies and national constitutions make life special.

Even under evolution "Life" is naturally geared towards survival. Our biological makeup is designed to repair and regenerate towards keeping "Life" preserved. But also culturally and socially where behaviour is about respect and protection of "Life".

We live like life is special. It would be counterintuitive to encourage people who are feeling suicidal to end their life and we certainly don't go around killing miserable people as a remedy. As conscious beings we dread non-existence and when someone loses their life we we treat it as something special is lost.

We think our lives are highly meaningful parts of the universe and a universe without consciousnes would be meaningless. A world with conscious beings seems more important that a world full of AI machines.

We know nature is special like water as it sustains life. So certainly the life it sustains is more special. We are searching for signs of life in the universe that has the hallmarks of our planet so its a special thing and if found would be one of the greatest discoveries ever.

Finally "Life" as far as we can tell cannot come from non-life. But even to say that life somehow came about through a natural process the odds are beyond calculation which makes it a very unique and special event.

These all support that "LIfe" is special and justify our belief that "LIfe" is intrinsically valuable.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think the reasons why life has this special intrinsic value comes from a number of sources and they all seem on converge that "LIfe" is special and valuable.

As far as we know we are the only human life in the universe thus rare. But its also because its conscious life where we are able to realize this and our place in the scheme of things. All religions make "Life" special and respected. As mentioned all world bodies and national constitutions make life special.

Even under evolution "Life" is naturally geared towards survival. Our biological makeup is designed to repair and regenerate towards keeping "Life" preserved. But also culturally and socially where behaviour is about respect and protection of "Life".

We live like life is special. It would be counterintuitive to encourage people who are feeling suicidal to end their life and we certainly don't go around killing miserable people as a remedy. As conscious beings we dread non-existence and when someone loses their life we we treat it as something special is lost.

We think our lives are highly meaningful parts of the universe and a universe without consciousnes would be meaningless. A world with conscious beings seems more important that a world full of AI machines.

We know nature is special like water as it sustains life. So certainly the life it sustains is more special. We are searching for signs of life in the universe that has the hallmarks of our planet so its a special thing and if found would be one of the greatest discoveries ever.

Finally "Life" as far as we can tell cannot come from non-life. But even to say that life somehow came about through a natural process the odds are beyond calculation which makes it a very unique and special event.

These all support that "LIfe" is special and justify our belief that "LIfe" is intrinsically valuable.

Diamonds are exceedingly rare and special and humans treat them as such. Are they intrinsically valuable too? Do we have obligations towards diamonds?

 

[stevevw]

Diamonds are exceedingly rare and special and humans treat them as such. Are they intrinsically valuable too? Do we have obligations towards diamonds?

I think diamonds fall far short of the value of life as the Beatles sang "Give you a diamond ring my girl but it can't buy me love". Diamonds are made valuable because of the illusion sold and the economy humans have created and go up and down with that market. In fact people begin to spend less on diamond rings nowadays.

Anyway diamonds are not that rare, The International Gem Society notes that the diamond is actually one of the most popular mined gemstones.
Are diamonds really rare? Myths and misconceptions about diamonds #diamonds

They also have no consciousness, we don't grieve at their loss like human life, a planet full of diamonds is no more special than a planet full of rocks compared to a planet with conscious life. Losing a diamond ring though a sentimental and financial loss is nothing compared to losing a life. We will be no where as excited and amazed at finding a planet with diamonds compared to a planet with life.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think diamonds fall far short of the value of life as the Beatles sang "Give you a diamond ring my girl but it can't buy me love". Diamonds are made valuable because of the illusion sold and the economy humans have created and go up and down with that market. In fact people begin to spend less on diamond rings nowadays.

Anyway diamonds are not that rare, The International Gem Society notes that the diamond is actually one of the most popular mined gemstones.
Are diamonds really rare? Myths and misconceptions about diamonds #diamonds

They also have no consciousness, we don't grieve at their loss like human life, a planet full of diamonds is no more special than a planet full of rocks compared to a planet with conscious life. Losing a diamond ring though a sentimental and financial loss is nothing compared to losing a life. We will be no where as excited and amazed at finding life on another planet compared to diamonds.

So you do a emotional argument trying to support that ”life is intrinsicly valuable” is an objective fact.

Hilarious!

 

[childeye 2]

So you do a emotional argument trying to support that ”life is intrinsicly valuable” is an objective fact.

Hilarious!

I've read the post you're referring to and I think you've misunderstood what he said. I believe the poster is stating that a person, such as yourself, has more value than a stone (a thing). That's not something that could be comprehended if we didn't have feelings that value others.

For example, someone can state that Mothers love their children more than a piece of dirt, and that is obviously true, but I would have to have feelings to comprehend why it is so.

 

[Moral Orel]

They also have no consciousness, we don't grieve at their loss like human life, a planet full of diamonds is no more special than a planet full of rocks compared to a planet with conscious life. Losing a diamond ring though a sentimental and financial loss is nothing compared to losing a life. We will be no where as excited and amazed at finding a planet with diamonds compared to a planet with life.

But then we aren't talking about the value of "life" anymore, we're talking about the value of "consciousness". Life isn't "intrinsically valuable". It's only valuable because it brings about consciousness.

If we're comparing the amount of living beings to the amount of diamonds, I'm pretty sure there's more living beings. Diamonds are more rare than life, so they must be intrinsically valuable too.

 

[stevevw]

So you do a emotional argument trying to support that ”life is intrinsicly valuable” is an objective fact.

Hilarious!

No its a rational arguement based on facts. The comparison was that diamonds. I gave facts that diamoinds are not intrinically valuable like Life.

 

[stevevw]

But then we aren't talking about the value of "life" anymore, we're talking about the value of "consciousness". Life isn't "intrinsically valuable". It's only valuable because it brings about consciousness.

If we're comparing the amount of living beings to the amount of diamonds, I'm pretty sure there's more living beings. Diamonds are more rare than life, so they must be intrinsically valuable too.

It wasn't just based on rarity and rarity is not just based on the amount of something. Life has other quualities that make it valuable for which I gave and for which you have not addressed.

 

[Moral Orel]

It wasn't just based on rarity and rarity is not just based on the amount of something. Life has other quualities that make it valuable for which I gave and for which you have not addressed.

So do we agree that rarity doesn't make something valuable then?